Gettability of things that are not bits is the same as getting a proxy for the real object. Things that are not bits cannot be retrieved using HTTP GET since they don't fit into the network. Nick is merely pointing out that there is no TRON.
I'm pointing out Nick's point is obvious, and doesn't go to the heart of the problem of how to represent the extant data.
-----Original Message-----
From: www-rdf-dspace-request@w3.org [mailto:www-rdf-dspace-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David R. Karger
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 11:13 AM
To: matsakis@mit.edu
Cc: stefano@apache.org; www-rdf-dspace@w3.org
Subject: Re: ungetable http URIs
I wouldn't restrict "gettability" to things with bits. And even if the thing is bits, I wouldn't _require_ that GETs return those bits. I would be satisfied if all gettable URLs provided _some useful_ information about the named object, without worrying whether it is complete.
X-Original-To: www-rdf-dspace@frink.w3.org
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:16:40 -0500 (EST)
From: Nick Matsakis <matsakis@mit.edu>
X-X-Sender: matsakis@artoo.ai.mit.edu
Cc: SIMILE public list <www-rdf-dspace@w3.org>
X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.OSX.4.56.0312011214060.5893@artoo.ai.mit.edu
X-Mailing-List: <www-rdf-dspace@w3.org> archive/latest/832
X-Loop: www-rdf-dspace@w3.org
X-LocalTest: Local Origin
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> If I got to vote, I would vote +1 for "getable" URIs because I think
> that they don't add complexity, they are consistent with the general
> XML movement, and they are potentially more valuable in the future.
If I got to vote, I would say 'getable' URIs should be assigned to things
that can be expressed as bits, or things that are elements of RDF schemas
(e.g. if you come across something with an RDF type you don't recognize,
it would be nice if there was a schema saying something that type at a
conveniently retrivable URL).
I think things that don't meet those requirements should get ungetable
URIs.
Nick